Cavs have as much chance of drafting Davis as you had of winning MegaMillions last night. He's going to the Bobcats, whose record is so bad they'll have about a hundred million ping-pong balls in the hopper.

Cavs have as much chance of drafting Davis as you had of winning MegaMillions last night. He's going to the Bobcats, whose record is so bad they'll have about a hundred million ping-pong balls in the hopper.

Even with a million losses, they'd still only have a 25% chance to win. In the last 21 years only twice has the team with the worst record won the lottery; Orlando in 2004 and the Cavs who were tied for the worst record when they took James. Even last year, the Clippers/Cavs won with a 2.8% chance (8th), not the Cavs with the 2nd-worst record ball-count.

Last edited by rebelwithoutaclue on Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Aren't their "floors" as to what the Bobcats will get? I think they are guaranteed at least a 4, and the #2 seed likewise a 6 at least (to lazy to look it up). So it isn't exactly 12.5% or 25%. Or maybe it is...and my math is screwy.

Aren't their "floors" as to what the Bobcats will get? I think they are guaranteed at least a 4, and the #2 seed likewise a 6 at least (to lazy to look it up). So it isn't exactly 12.5% or 25%. Or maybe it is...and my math is screwy.

Rest assured, losing every game from here on out would be best.

The "floor" is your position in the rankings +3. Outside the top 3, odds are heavily biased in getting the pick at your position or one pick later. No. 1 overall is great, but the bigger deal is getting into the top 4 in the rankings, where odds are heavily skewed towards being in the top 5.

Aren't their "floors" as to what the Bobcats will get? I think they are guaranteed at least a 4, and the #2 seed likewise a 6 at least (to lazy to look it up). So it isn't exactly 12.5% or 25%. Or maybe it is...and my math is screwy.

Rest assured, losing every game from here on out would be best.

The "floor" is your position in the rankings +3. Outside the top 3, odds are heavily biased in getting the pick at your position or one pick later. No. 1 overall is great, but the bigger deal is getting into the top 4 in the rankings, where odds are heavily skewed towards being in the top 5.

Christ, not sure how it wasn't clear as day these guys were going to be one of the worst teams in the league.

And yeah, Andy got injured. But you've got a solid coach, your first round pick turned out fantastic, your other pick is a contributor, they kept Jamison.....all this and they were still going to be terrible. Imagine if the above woulda turned out bad.

They'll have the amount of balls in that thing a bad team should have, and I'm not sure what could've happened to possible jeapordize this. Anyone have the slightest inclination that Parker, Hollins, Samuels, Boobie and the like were gonna turn out to be worth anything?

Prosecutor wrote:The Cavs were 10-14 going into the Feb. 10 game against Milwaukee where Andy got hurt. His loss was felt immediately as their record dropped to 6-11 over the next 17 games until Sessions was traded.

Without both Andy and Ramon the Cavs are 1-8.

So the loss of those two players dropped the Cavs winning percantage from 42% to 11%. That's the cost of not having a legitmate backup center or point guard on the roster.

All for the best, though, since ping pong balls are the priority.

You do realize the number of playoff teams that have pretty poor back-up centers and point guards, don't you.

leadpipe wrote:You do realize the number of playoff teams that have pretty poor back-up centers and point guards, don't you.

Yeah, and if they lost their starting centers and backup point guards their won-loss records would be affected. Maybe not as much as the Cavs since their backup centers and PGs are probably better than Hollins, Erden, and Sloan. What's your point?

The loss of Ramon Sessions has derailed a juggernaut.

I believe I mentioned the Cavs were 10-14 before they lost both Andy and Sessions. One, they weren't a juggernaut, and two, they lost two key players, not just Sessions.

The fact that you have to describe a 10-14 team as a "juggernaut" and then leave out the loss of Varajao in order to attack my post tells me you really don't have a response.

Your argument was that even if Andy stayed healthy the Cavs were "still going to be terrible" and it should have been "clear as day they were going to be one of the worst teams in the league". Well, the fact is they were winning 42% of their games, and were not one of the worst teams in the league, they were actually in playoff contention. Sorry, but the facts don't support your take, unless you want to claim that a 42% winning percentage is one of the worst in the league. Which will be hard to do since you are already on record as saying that same team was a "juggernaut".

leadpipe wrote:You do realize the number of playoff teams that have pretty poor back-up centers and point guards, don't you.

Yeah, and if they lost their starting centers and backup point guards their won-loss records would be affected. Maybe not as much as the Cavs since their backup centers and PGs are probably better than Hollins, Erden, and Sloan. What's your point?

The loss of Ramon Sessions has derailed a juggernaut.

I believe I mentioned the Cavs were 10-14 before they lost both Andy and Sessions. One, they weren't a juggernaut, and two, they lost two key players, not just Sessions.

The fact that you have to describe a 10-14 team as a "juggernaut" and then leave out the loss of Varajao in order to attack my post tells me you really don't have a response.

Your argument was that even if Andy stayed healthy the Cavs were "still going to be terrible" and it should have been "clear as day they were going to be one of the worst teams in the league". Well, the fact is they were winning 42% of their games, and were not one of the worst teams in the league, they were actually in playoff contention. Sorry, but the facts don't support your take, unless you want to claim that a 42% winning percentage is one of the worst in the league. Which will be hard to do since you are already on record as saying that same team was a "juggernaut".

Christ.

An argument or a response.....

What the hell is there to argue about - or respond to.

The Cavs blow. All year. You wanna trumpet 42%, and then split hairs as to where in the hierarchy of awfulness that rests, feel free - it's pretty much you MO.

I have no point other than that the Cavs are a bad NBA team. Even at their height of the glistening/peak 42 winning percentage.

And despite anyone's (primarily you) fairy tale anaysis that it was somehow going to change is just nuts. From week one when MULTIPLE people SERIOUSLY referred to Samardo Samuels as a BEAST all they way through how losing Ramon Sessions has crippled there chances to only suck a little....all a waste of time.

They blew when they were 10-14 to start the season when everybody was healthy. They blew after Andy got hurt, even when they beat Denver (current record 29-24), Oklahoma City (40-13) and Houston (29-25) in consecutive games. And now they still blow. No difference between today's team with no Andy, Sessions or Boobie that is 1-8 since the Sessions trade and the team that started 10-14. Same sucky team.

Sorry, I detect a difference in the team we saw for the first 25 games and what we see now, a team that loses nearly every game by double digits. Call it "hair splitting" if that makes you feel better, but I still maintain that if Andy had not been injured we would not be looking at the 4th worst record in the league, or close to it.

I'll be getting the Drummond bandwagon started soon. Centers in year two of college usually show major improvement. He was a disappointment this year (as far as hype and offense go) get it done CAVS woohoo!

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

BTW: The Cavs aren't tanking, they were playing over their heads at 10-14, now reality has set in and the super suck is going to even them out to where they belong, in the bottom 3-4 teams in the league.

If they were tanking Jamo would not be a Cav and no one can tell me otherwise.

e0y2e3 wrote:You would go all in on the guy who did more to hurt his draft stock this year than anyone else just because he is a center.

And lazy isn't usually your style....

Yeah I just read Givony's piece from the 22nd of March. It all comes down to where the Cavaliers wind up picking. At four I think its Beal, but if we land higher (not 1, that is obvious) things get more interesting. I do not take Beal of Drummond. As I said fives usually do feh first year college, and Drummond was younger than most freshman.

I am aware of the red flags an they will prevent me from being my normal fanboi. I'll need to dig more on these guys, but I know how wowowowowowyippy feels about Beal.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

e0y2e3 wrote:BTW: The Cavs aren't tanking, they were playing over their heads at 10-14, now reality has set in and the super suck is going to even them out to where they belong, in the bottom 3-4 teams in the league.

If they were tanking Jamo would not be a Cav and no one can tell me otherwise.

This POV has plenty of contributing factors including possibly the lightest early schedule, and guys playing well who cannot sustain it (rooks, Jamo, injured Andy).

Playing out the string is settling in just nicely as we consolidate our hold on the 4 spot.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Sloan - D-LeagueHudson - D-LeagueCasspi - Lost starting job, bumWalton - Was told he wouldn't play at start of season, not part of Lakers rotation, now playing heavy minutesSamuels - I remember when we thought he had potential, has sucked all year

Yeah, I gotta respect both PROS and Lead's points. This team was always going to be bad, they punched above their weight, but a lockout schedule and guys playing good team ball quite possibly had us mired in late lotto. This group is markedly worse and a lock for #4 and there is some upside...!!!

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Only 3 games in the win column back of the Hornets for the 3rd slot. Any chance the Hornets can win 3 more games than the Cavs the rest of the way... or, considering the way things are going, any chance the Hornets win 3 more games... the Cavs look like they might not win another.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

Only 3 games in the win column back of the Hornets for the 3rd slot. Any chance the Hornets can win 3 more games than the Cavs the rest of the way... or, considering the way things are going, any chance the Hornets win 3 more games... the Cavs look like they might not win another.

Only 3 games in the win column back of the Hornets for the 3rd slot. Any chance the Hornets can win 3 more games than the Cavs the rest of the way... or, considering the way things are going, any chance the Hornets win 3 more games... the Cavs look like they might not win another.

4 games is a lot to make up this late in the season.

It is. But the Cavs are firing on no cylinders right now. They have a chance.